Ex Parte FLECKENSTEIN et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2019

13898837 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/898,837 05/21/2013
23911 7590 03/27/2019
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthias FLECKENSTEIN
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
080437.65416US 2736
EXAMINER
CONLEY,OIK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
apomeroy@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHIAS FLECKENSTEIN, THOMAS HOEFLER,
AXELLE HAUCK, and TUNCAY IDIKURT
Appeal2018-005717
Application 13/898,837
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1 and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Matthias 3 and Oosaki. 4 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed May 21, 2013; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") dated July 11, 2017; Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.") filed December 1, 2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated March 22,
2018, and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed May 15, 2018.
2 Appellant is Bayerische Motoren W erke Aktiengesellschaft, which
according to the Appeal Brief is the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
3 US 2010/0203368 Al, published August 12, 2010.
4 US 5,689,173, issued November 18, 1997.
Appeal2018-005717
Application 13/898,837
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to an electrochemical energy
storage system having a temperature sensing unit. Spec. ,r 2.
Claim I-the sole independent claim on appeal-reads:
1. An apparatus configured to extend the service life of a
motor vehicle energy storage system, the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of storage cells of the energy storage system,
the storage cells configured to store electrochemical energy for
operating the motor vehicle, each storage cell having two
connection terminals;
a plurality of connection elements operatively configured
for electrically contacting associated connection terminals of
the storage cells; and
a temperature sensor unit configured to detect a
temperature of the energy storage system and to provide
detected temperature information to an automatic temperature
control system of the motor vehicle, the temperature sensor unit
having a respective temperature sensor arranged directly on a
tab of one of the plurality of connection elements that is
electrically and thermally conductively coupled between two
associated connection terminals of the storage cells, and
wherein the connection element forms a connection
surface extending between the two associated connection
terminals to which the connection element is electrically and
thermally conductively coupled, and wherein the temperature
sensor is arranged on the tab so as to situated outside of, and
not overlap with, the connection surface.
App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight a key
recitation in dispute).
OPINION
Appellant argues claims 1 and 11-16 as a group, directing the
arguments to recitations found in claim 1. See App. Br. 3-11. We select
2
Appeal2018-005717
Application 13/898,837
claim 1 as representative of the group. Claims 11-16 stand or fall with
claim 1. Separately argued claim 17 is separately addressed.
Claim 1
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Matthias discloses an
energy storage system comprising storage cells connected at their terminals
by connection elements, and a temperature sensor associated with the energy
storage system. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner further finds that Matthias
teaches various locations for the temperature sensor, including on a
connection element or outside the connection surface of the connection
elements within a space formed by adjacent storage cells. Id. at 3; Ans. 8-9.
The Examiner finds that Oosaki discloses a multi-cell battery having a
temperature responsive device that is both located within a space formed by
adjacent storage cells and connected with at least one cell terminal. Final
Act. 3. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of one of Matthias' connection
elements to connect with a temperature sensor provided in one of the
locations disclosed by Matthias that is outside the connection surface. Final
Act. 3--4; Ans. 6.
Appellant argues that Matthias teaches away from locating the
temperature sensor outside of a connecting element's connection area
because Matthias states that it is preferable for the sensor to be positioned as
close as possible to a pole of an accumulator cell. App. Br. 5 ( citing
Matthias ,r 10); Reply Br. 1. Appellant's argument is not persuasive of
reversible error. The fact that Matthias identifies a location as preferred
does not teach away from other sensor locations because it "does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage" the non-preferred locations.
3
Appeal2018-005717
Application 13/898,837
See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To the contrary,
Matthias shows alternative sensor locations that include positions outside the
connection area of any cell connector, and further states that it is "possible to
use positions other than the ones shown." Matthias ,r 37, Fig. 5.
Appellant also argues that Matthias and Oosaki are non-analogous art
because Matthias involves a sensor, such as a temperature sensor, whereas
Oosaki discloses a heat sensitive current cut-off device. App. Br. 6; Reply
Br. 2-3. We disagree. In order to be properly relied upon in an obviousness
analysis, a prior art reference must qualify as "analogous art," i.e., it must
satisfy one of the following conditions: (i) the reference must be from the
same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (ii) the reference must be
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Ent., Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321
(Fed. Cir. 2011). In this case, both Matthias and Oosaki are from the same
field of endeavor as the claimed invention----electrochemical energy storage
systems.
Appellant further argues that Oosaki' s teaching of providing a safety
device connected in series to a set of battery cells does not correspond to the
claimed sensor arrangement. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 4---6. Appellant
contends it is unclear how the structure depicted in Matthias would have
been modified in light of Oosaki to result in the claimed positioning of a
sensor on a tab of a connection element. App. Br. at 9-11. Appellant's
arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error.
Figure 5 in Matthias, reproduced below, shows a temperature sensor
200 associated with a plurality of battery cells 10 connected at their poles 12
by cell connectors 100.
4
Appeal2018-005717
Application 13/898,837
Fig. 5
Figure 5 is a top sectional view of a multi-cell battery pack.
In this Figure, Matthias discloses temperature sensor 200 in various possible
locations, including a location where the sensor is positioned on a cell
connector 100 and another location where the sensor is located in a space
adjacent to a battery cell outside the connection area of any of the cell
connectors. See Matthias ,r 37, Fig. 5. Positioning a temperature sensor
both on a cell connector and in a space between battery cells essentially
would have involved a combination of the two positions expressly shown in
Matthias. Moreover, Matthias teaches that the temperature sensor "is
preferably in direct contact with the electrical cell connector." Id. ,r 10
( emphasis added). In light of these disclosures in Matthias, whether taken
alone or together with Oosaki' s example of locating a connected electronic
device in the space between battery cells, we are persuaded that a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's obviousness
5
Appeal2018-005717
Application 13/898,837
determination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to extend
one of the connection elements in Matthias to contact a temperature sensor
located in the space provided between adjacent battery cells. The skilled
artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co.
v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007).
The rejection as applied to claims 1 and 11-16 is sustained.
Claim 17
Claim 1 7 further defines the apparatus of claim 1 by reciting that "the
tab has a lower current density than the connection surface extending
between the two associated connection terminals." The Examiner finds that
this recited property necessarily results from the positioning of a cell
connector tab relative to the cell connector, and therefore would have
resulted upon making the above-described modification to Matthias to
include a tab that extends to a sensor located in the space between adjacent
cells. Final Act. 5; Ans. 22. The Examiner points to paragraph 37 of the
Specification as evidence that the claimed current density property is a
consequence of the tab position. Ans. 22 (citing Spec. ,r 37).
Appellant argues that it was improper for the Examiner to rely on the
Specification for evidence of what may be inherent. App. Br. 12. We
disagree. The claims are interpreted in light of the Specification. We see no
error in the Examiner's reference to the Specification as evidence of the fact
that the claimed property is a consequence of the tab position.
The rejection as applied to claim 17 also is sustained.
6
Appeal2018-005717
Application 13/898,837
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 11-17 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7